RAJESH SIVASANKARA PILLAI Vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the environs of a rather quotidian writ petition, assailing the measures taken by a Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity), is an interesting question posed before this Court, as to whether, under the mandate of Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules' for short), a subsequent sale of a secured asset can be done without the Bank having to publish a sale notice without a 30 day time window.

(2.) The afore question becomes imperative for consideration in this case because Sri Titus Mani Vettom, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the action of the Bank in having sold a certain property, belonging to his clients and concededly offered by them as a secured asset against a loan availed of by them from the said Bank, pursuant to Ext. P1 sale notification with only a time delay of 19 clear days between the date of publication of the same and the date of sale, is an affront on the provisions of the Act and the Rules; and therefore, that the sale is rendered non-est and legally incompetent, thus that his clients are not required to invoke the alternative statutory remedy to challenge the same under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

(3.) I have heard Sri Titus Mani Vettom, the learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri A. Antony, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent - Bank and Sri K. Sasikumar, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent - auction purchaser of the property.